|
|
Roland Mas wrote in message ...
>
> Huuh? See the number of patches that are published these days?
>
Indeed. But there are a number of very useful things, like non-linear
transformations, which, IMHO, can't be done - not without very substantial
core modifications.
>
> Whaaaat? Are you *really* meaning that? Backwards compatibility
>not to be considered a major requirement? Makes me jump on my seat
>each time I read that. How dare you speak of easy extension if you
>abandon backward compatibility?
>
I tend to agree, backward compatibility is important. Otherwise, the work of
many people, in the form of plugins, tutorials etc. would come to nothing.
But this should not be a dogma. Some compatibility will have to be
sacrificed, and has been sacrificed before, to facilitate future
improvements.
>> (No more specially preparing image files for height fields.)
>
> You'll have to forgive me for that, but that sounds like one of the
>biggest pieces of nonsense I've ever heard. How do you intend to
>generate height fields without specially prepared images? Randomly?
>
Internally. This is already possible in the Superpatch. In essence, you
assign a height pattern, like a normal pattern. No need to create a separate
scene, plane, orthographic camera etc., render it and use the resulting
bitmap for the heigtfield.
> Variable IOR means bent rays, which is kind of a huge piece of work
>to do. I agree on the use of these features, though.
>
I suppose this _could_ be simulated with volume sampling, like in media. But
that's my uneducated guess.
>
>> We are speaking of a real interpreter here, with function calls and
>> user objects. (The current macro language is already a step in that
>> direction, and it should be taken further.)
>
> Wake up man, you're *describing scenes*, not programming! Is life
>object oriented? Are your car and fridge objects with attributes and
>methods? How often do you call the tap.open() or the window.close()
>functions?
>
You could call it programming (well, scripting). How much so, depends on the
particular user. And of fourse POV _objects_ are objects, and can be
instanced with different attributes. But I know too little about OOP to make
any definitive case here.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|